Disposed¶8

Suraj Prakash v. the State of Hp and Others

Execution Petition – compliance with judgment

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2025EX.P./1819/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HP High Court, Shimla; Execution Petition No. 1819 of 2025; decided 18.9.2025 by Sandeep Sharma, J.; petitioner Suraj Prakash vs State of HP; execution of judgment — respondents granted admissible benefit, services brought on contractual establishment as Pump Attendant w.e.f. office letter dated 28.3.2025 (12 years' service as on 31.12.2023, minimum 240 days/year); grievance over due date; petition disposed of with liberty to approach appropriate court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law qua his surviving grievance (that he was not brought on contractual establishment as Pump Attendant from the due date), if any. ¶8

Suraj Prakash Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment sought to be executed stands complied with, respondents having brought the petitioner's services on contractual establishment as Pump Attendant. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

The Court recorded its satisfaction that the judgment sought to be executed stands complied with, the petitioner — who had completed twelve years as on 31.12.2023 with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year — having been brought on contractual establishment as Pump Attendant vide office letter dated 28.3.2025.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Since the only direction in the judgment alleged to have been violated was to consider the petitioner's case, and the respondents have complied with it, there was no justification to keep the present petition alive.

¶8

Key takeaways

The execution petition was disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law qua any surviving grievance (i.e., non-grant of the benefit from the due date), if any.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition — compliance with judgment — Respondents, in terms of the mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed, considered the petitioner's representation and brought his services on contractual establishment as Pump Attendant vide office letter dated 28.3.2025, he having completed twelve years as on 31.12.2023 with a minimum of 240 days in each calendar year; compliance office order dated 12.8.2025 of Executive Engineer, JSV Division Ghumarwin placed on record — Court satisfied that the judgment stood complied with; the only direction therein was to consider the petitioner's case — petition disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue his surviving grievance (benefit not granted from due date) before the appropriate forum.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Execution Petition No. 1819 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.9.2025

¶3

_____________________________________________________________________ Suraj Prakash ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶4

While placing on record copy of office order dated 12.8.2025, issued under the signature of Executive Engineer JSV Division Ghumarwin, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that respondents after having considered representation of the petitioner in terms of mandate contained in the judgment sought to be executed, have granted him due and admissible benefit.

¶5

2. Having perused aforesaid order, which is taken on record, this Court finds that services of the petitioner, who has completed twelve years as on 31.12.2023 with minimum of 240 days in each calendar year, have been brought on contractual establishment as Pump Attendant vide office letter dated 28.3.2025. Though this court is convinced and satisfied that

¶6

¶7

judgment stands complied with, but learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has not been brought on contractual establishment as Pump Attendant from due date.

¶8

3. Since there was only direction to consider case of the petitioner in light of judgment alleged to have been violated and respondents have complied with the same, there appears to be no justification to keep the present petition alive. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate court of law qua surviving grievance, if any.

¶9

September 18, 2025 (manjit)

¶10

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Suraj Prakash v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Prakash v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mansi Verma Vs the State of Hp and Another

Pradeep Kumar Vs the Hpsfc and Another

Neeraj Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Himani Laswai Vs Ashwani Kumar Sharma

Bodh Raj and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Raj Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others